ReviewSeminars in plastic surgery2017
Osseointegrated Implants and Prosthetic Reconstruction Following Skull Base Surgery.
Review in Seminars in plastic surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Salvage surgery for free flap failure in the maxillofacial region: a comprehensive review of principles and outcomes.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- General and Treatment-Specific Outcomes with Osseointegrated Implants in Auricular, Nasal, and Orbital Prosthetic Reconstruction.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2025Article
- Surgical Management of Complex Skull Base Tumor Using Preoperative Multimodal Image Fusion Technology.The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2024Article
- Reconstructive challenges of sinonasal tumors: A case report.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2022Article
- Efficacy and safety of an artificial dermal graft for the reconstruction of exenterated sockets: a preliminary report.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rehabilitation following ablative skull base surgery remains a challenging task, given the complexity of the anatomical region, despite the recent advances in reconstructive surgery. Remnant defects following resection of skull base tumors are often not amenable to primary closure. As such, numerous techniques have been described for reconstruction, including local rotational muscle flaps, pedicled flaps with skin paddle, or even free tissue transfer. However, not all patients are appropriate surgical candidates and therefore may instead benefit from nonsurgical options for functional and aesthetic restoration. Osseointegrated implants and biocompatible prostheses provide a viable alternative for such a patient population. The purpose of this review serves to highlight current options for prosthetic rehabilitation of skull base defects and describe their indications, advantages, and disadvantages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.